I think that’s more of a confounding correlation. America had birth rates above 3 when it landed a man in the moon. And Europe was “highly developed” before birth rates started collapsing in the 1970s. Several highly successful American subgroups, such as Muslims and Mormons, still have birth rates above replacement.

And Asia has its own distinct issue, which is that development coincided with population control evangelism from the west.

You’ve mentioned Mormonism twice now as an example of successful monogamous societies but it should be noted that the growth rate of the church has become negative. I’d be amazed if the LDS church is still around in any meaningful way 30 years from now. It’s hardly meaningful now.

As far as I can tell, it's one of the more robust sociological correlations that has been established worldwide. Fertility rates are dropping on every continent, and the drops are strongly correlated with economic development. See links below, they seem pretty damning.

And yes, it begun in the second half of the 20th century, but I don't think that makes it spurious.

I wouldn't be surprised if western cultural influence played a meaningful role, but I can't imagine that explaining the entire phenomenon.

---

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility (see the graph at the top)

* https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#total-fertility-ra...

* https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034075/fertility-rate-w...

Is it a bad thing ?

As you might know, Malthus was quite concerned about the issues of overpopulation. His solution was to educate women. This seems to be working surprisingly well !

>His solution was to educate women.

Really? I never knew this! Can you expand on his rhetoric at all?

Well, that too short comment of mine might be slightly disingenuous, considering what you might have thought I meant by this, but here's an overview :

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/aehr.12250

I seem to remember that he practiced what he preached (not only as the first ever professor of economics, but also as a pastor), and has founded at least one school for women, but annoyingly I can't seem to find the source any more ??

Of note also : by the end of the 19th century the (neo-)Malthusian feminists had already embraced ideas that he disagreed with like contraception and for some even abortion.

The elephant in the room is that “highly developed” is a euphemism for “women are treated equally and have rights”.

Only if you define “rights” and equal treatment in rather libertarian way. Americans’ ideal family size is the highest in decades. Almost half of women (46%) ideally want three or more kids: https://news.gallup.com/poll/511238/americans-preference-lar.... But the American ideal of “equality” is giving women the choice to be treated like childless men in the workforce. And America’s idea of “rights” is allowing women to abort pregnancies, rather than the “right” to social and economic support for having children.

Ideal != even close to going to happen. As you note, the reality on the ground is so unconducive to that actually happening, it’s a joke.